4 ms·

I think the "they" in your post is actually a bunch of disparate groups. You are acting like there is internal inconsistency, but that's because the conflicting

I think the "they" in your post is actually a bunch of disparate groups. You are acting like there is internal inconsistency, but that's because the conflicting beliefs came out of different camps. Anyway, I think most people in support of the "new" ideology, as you call it, would say that the "old" ideology was flawed. Some might say it was bullshit, some might just say it was misguided or overly hopeful. Ideas change over time, I'm not sure why you think society's views on race should remain static, especially considering that the Civil Rights Movement was only a few generations ago. Every generation our theories of race change. The ideological right has also changed its stance on a lot of things. Do you also think that makes them have no credibility?

robertlagrant 5y ago
> Anyway, I think most people in support of the "new" ideology, as you call it, would say that the "old" ideology was flawed. Some might say it was bullshit, some might just say it was misguided or overly hopeful. While there are of course real injustices, which different people think motivate different responses, what we're talking about here feels manufactured in (mostly) American universities. Nothing like deliberately splitting people along the lines of immutable characteristics to create problems for social scientists to "solve".
jollybean 5y ago
It doesn't matter if the ideas are nuanced, we know they are. It's deeply hypocritical and exposes lack of intellectual consistency if morally shaming people into doing 'XYZ' for several decades, then castigating them as literally 'Upholding White Supremacy' for doing those very same things some time later. The 'internal conflict' that will arise in anyone of those people will be insurmountable, and the 'New Camp' will never have legitimacy in their eyes, just the opposite in fact, even if there is some validity in their ideals. This is borne largely out of the absolution, radicalism, lack of self awareness, inflexibility and binary thinking of the 'New Camp' (it's usually that way with 'New Camps') and because those who are 'just a bit older' have the life experience to reflect back on their own experiences of being 'too black and white' and can therefore contextualize any of the supposedly 'New' ideals at least in terms of individual's own life progress. The assumption by the 'New Camps' is that they are the righteous inheritors of the fairly unambiguous social victories of the 1960's, that among them are the MLK's and JFK's who will have statues made and words etched in stone as the new moral impetus etc. - but this would be wrong. Despite some obvious things that can and will be improved, most of today's social populism is nowhere near unambiguously on the right side of history. And finally: I'm not discounting any single idea presented by any individual or group acting in good faith. I'm discounting whether or not they should or will be recognized universally, and pointing out the problems with their assertive posture.

robertlagrant 5y ago

> Anyway, I think most people in support of the "new" ideology, as you call it, would say that the "old" ideology was flawed. Some might say it was bullshit, some might just say it was misguided or overly hopeful. While there are of course real injustices, which different people think motivate different responses, what we're talking about here feels manufactured in (mostly) American universities. Nothing like deliberately splitting people along the lines of immutable characteristics to create problems for social scientists to "solve".

jollybean 5y ago

It doesn't matter if the ideas are nuanced, we know they are. It's deeply hypocritical and exposes lack of intellectual consistency if morally shaming people into doing 'XYZ' for several decades, then castigating them as literally 'Upholding White Supremacy' for doing those very same things some time later. The 'internal conflict' that will arise in anyone of those people will be insurmountable, and the 'New Camp' will never have legitimacy in their eyes, just the opposite in fact, even if there is some validity in their ideals. This is borne largely out of the absolution, radicalism, lack of self awareness, inflexibility and binary thinking of the 'New Camp' (it's usually that way with 'New Camps') and because those who are 'just a bit older' have the life experience to reflect back on their own experiences of being 'too black and white' and can therefore contextualize any of the supposedly 'New' ideals at least in terms of individual's own life progress. The assumption by the 'New Camps' is that they are the righteous inheritors of the fairly unambiguous social victories of the 1960's, that among them are the MLK's and JFK's who will have statues made and words etched in stone as the new moral impetus etc. - but this would be wrong. Despite some obvious things that can and will be improved, most of today's social populism is nowhere near unambiguously on the right side of history. And finally: I'm not discounting any single idea presented by any individual or group acting in good faith. I'm discounting whether or not they should or will be recognized universally, and pointing out the problems with their assertive posture.